Opinion
1:22 -cv-00977-HBK (PC)
09-01-2023
ANDY GOMEZ, Plaintiff, v. GONZALEZ and CHARLES, Defendants.
OCTOBER 2, 2023 DEADLINE
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO LIMITED EXTENT (Doc. No. 10)
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's second motion for an extension of time filed on August 25, 2023. (Doc. No. 10). Plaintiff requests a 45-day extension of time to respond to the Court's June 23, 2023 screening order because he was “unexpectedly transferred from Calipatria State Prison to R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility,” he did not receive his legal materials until July 22, 2023, and he needs more time to conduct research. (Id.)
The Court may grant an extension of time “with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(A). The undersigned previously ordered Plaintiff to deliver to correctional officials for mailing his response to the Court's June 23, 2023 screening order no later no later than August 25, 2023. (Doc. No. 9 at 2 ¶ 2). Thus, Plaintiff's motion is timely. The Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff an extension of time but finds an additional forty-five (45) day extension of time excessive. Notably, per a notice of change of address filed by Plaintiff, he was transferred to RJ Donovan Correctional Facility on January 5, 2023, which is far removed in time from the date of this Order. (Doc. No. 6). And the Court already granted Plaintiff a previous extension of time. (Doc. No.9). Nevertheless, the Court will grant Plaintiff one final extension of time. Plaintiff is granted a further thirty (30) day extension to file his response to the Court's June 23, 2023 screening order.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED to the limited extent that that Plaintiff must deliver his response to the Court's June 23, 2023 screening order to correctional officials for mailing no later than October 2, 2023.
2. If Plaintiff fails to timely file his response to the screening order, despite this extension of time, the undersigned will recommend the district court dismiss this case for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action and comply with a court order.